The Dakota Question: Why Two States, and Does It Still Make Sense?

A Brief History of Division

North Dakota and South Dakota weren't always separate. From 1861 to 1889, they were simply "Dakota Territory"—a vast expanse of prairie, badlands, and Black Hills that stretched from Minnesota to Montana.

The split, when it came, was largely political. In 1889, the Republican-controlled Congress faced a dilemma: Dakota Territory was ready for statehood, but admitting it as a single state would add only two senators (likely Republican). Splitting it would add four. The math was compelling.

President Benjamin Harrison, according to legend, shuffled the two statehood proclamations so that no one would know which Dakota was admitted first. Both became states on November 2, 1889. The alphabetical convention places North Dakota as the 39th state and South Dakota as the 40th, but officially, they're twins.

The Case for Reunification

137 years later, the question is worth asking: Does the division still make sense?

Combined Statistics:

• Population: ~1.66 million (ND: ~780,000 + SD: ~880,000)
• Land Area: 147,000 square miles (larger than Germany)
• Combined GDP: ~$85 billion
• State Capitals: Bismarck (ND) and Pierre (SD)—both small, both overlooked

Arguments for Reunification:

1. Administrative Efficiency: Two state governments, two legislatures, two court systems, two everything—for a combined population smaller than Calgary.
2. Shared Identity: "Dakota" is a meaningful identity. The Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota peoples don't recognize the state line. Neither does the weather, the landscape, or the culture.
3. Economic Scale: A unified Dakota would have more negotiating power, more administrative capacity, and less duplication.
4. Historical Correction: The split was a political convenience, not a reflection of genuine differences between the populations.

Arguments Against:

1. Identity Has Developed: 137 years of separate statehood has created some genuine differences—different tax structures, different political cultures, different self-images.
2. Representation: Two states mean four senators. Reunification would halve their voice in Congress.
3. Capital Question: Neither Bismarck nor Pierre would want to become "just another city."

What Would Reunification Look Like Under Saskatchewan?

If both Dakotas were to join Saskatchewan, the reunification question becomes moot—they'd be unified by default under provincial jurisdiction. But the internal dynamics would remain:

• Would they become a single administrative region, or maintain separate identities within the province?
• How would the Black Hills (SD) and the Bakken oil fields (ND) be managed?
• Would "Dakota" become a regional designation within Saskatchewan, similar to how "Palliser" or "Cypress Hills" function now?

Questions for Discussion

1. If you were designing the prairie from scratch, would you create two Dakotas?
2. Does the 1889 political calculation still serve anyone's interests?
3. What could a reunified Dakota accomplish that two separate states cannot?
4. How do residents of each Dakota feel about their "twin"?

This forum explores the historical, cultural, and practical dimensions of the Dakota relationship—whether they remain twins, reunify, or find a new identity within a larger prairie family.